M. KATJU, J. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned award of the Labour Court, Dehradun dated 26. 4. 91 Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 2. Respondent No. 2 claims to be an employee of the petitioner who had been employed from 1986 to 1994 i. e. for about eight years, after which he was not allowed to work. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court. The respondent No. 2 filed a written state ment alleging that Section 6-N of U. P. In dustrial Disputes Act had been violated and his termination of service was arbitrary. Some representative of the employer, i. e. the petitioner in this writ petition, appeared before the Labour Court on 7-2-96 and was granted 20 days time to file written state ment but no written statement was filed and hence the award was given ex pane on 26-4-96. Subsequently a review application dated 2. 8. 96 was filed which was rejected by order dated 7-11-96, hence this writ petition has been filed. 3. In case after case which is coming up before this Court it is found that exparte awards or orders are being passed against the State Government or State Corpora tions or statutory authority simply because the litigation is not taken seriously by the concerned officer before the concerned court or authority. It is obvious that these concerned officers of the State Government or of the State Corporations have no per sonal liability in the matter and hence they are not bothered and take the litigation casually and orders are allowed to be passed exparte. The time has now come that these officers must be made to realise their per sonal liability in such matters. In private concerns the cases are taken seriously and seriously contested because there is a per sonal interest in the matter, but so far as the State Government or the State owned or controlled corporations are concerned their officers very often do not take the litigation seriously and allow orders to be passed ex parte against the Government or the Cor poration or the Statutory body either be cause of gross negligence or due to col lusion. This is a highly irresponsible way of functioningand the burden of such exparte orders falls ultimately on the tax payer, while the officer responsible escapes all liability. This is a highly irresponsible way of functioningand the burden of such exparte orders falls ultimately on the tax payer, while the officer responsible escapes all liability. The time has come when this prac tice must be stoppedand the officer con cerned is penalized personally. 4. In this case no justification for not contesting the case seriously has been given. Hence, I dismiss this writ petition. How ever, I direct that those officers who were responsible for having allowed the award of the Labour Court to have been given exparte must be charge-sheeted with in two months from todayand the enquiry against them must be completed with in four months there afterand those found guilty must be given severe punishment including ex emplary costs which they must pay per sonally for having caused loss to the State Exchequer. 5. Let a copy of this order be sent for thwith by the Registrar of this Court to the Chief Secretary, U. P. Government of U. P. , Lucknow, who must circulate it to all the heads of the Departments of the State Government as well as the top officers of the Government Corporations with a warning that such negligence and carelessness by such officers will not to tolerated any fur therand they will have to face personal liability in the, matter and will not be al lowed to go scot free. The Chief Secretary, U. P. will send a compliance report to this Court. 6. the writ petition is dismissed, but this case will be listed again before me on 8-9-97 on which date the learned Standing Counsel shall present the compliance report before me. Petition dismissed. .